Blue sky/Blue water - too light of a photo - newbie ??
JamieRN
background. I'm VERY new to photography, and used my auto focus without
changing any settings (Elan IIE). Although the photo is fine, it would have
been better somewhat darker. Their skin looks very pale, and the sky is too
bright. I wanted the background to show up, but how could I have made them
more "true" tone. If I had stepped down the aperture, would this have
helped? TIA for any assistance! Jamie
Don
It is quite possible that the picture is perfect, it was the lab that processed
the print and the machine just averaged out the exposure. Take it back and ask
them to print it 1/2 to 1 stop darker. Any good lab can do this even some 1hr
labs can also if you ask.
Also was the camera on full auto? I have an elanII and am very pleased with the
prints that I get back and I use many of the auto positions as well as manual.
There are times that the sky is washed out and this is caused by your wrong
exposure setting even in full auto, however this can be corrected in the lab
during printing.
What did you focus on when you took that shot? next time try metering the ground
and then recompose the picture and shoot. IF you point the camera at the ground
and then again on the background and then again on the sky you will end up with
three exposure settings. Try this out in the P mode and observe the diffrent
exposures.
Any further questions you can email me
Happy Shooting
Don
Paul Ferrara
will average out to a middle gray and in this case it was quite a bit
brighter than that. There are a couple of things you can do.
One, point the camera at some grass or the palm of your hand and lock in the
exposure. Then compose and focus, and shoot.
Two, your camera may have a couple exposure compensation buttons on it.
Press the one that will increase exposure. Often they're calibrated in
half-stop increments so you'll want to press it 2-4 times.
You'll run into a similar problem with backlighting (when the sun is behind
the subject).
Paul
JamieRN <jwoo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:81sfke$elc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
PBurian
Tell them exactly what you expect.
However, without seeing the pics, I cannot tell if they can meet your demands.
If the background sky.water is MUCH brighter than the primar subject, what
would the lab do?
If they produce a print with a darker background the subject (people) will be
much too dark.
General Solution: When you photograph someone in front of a bright background,
use flash. The Elan II provides Daylight Balanced Fill Flash automatically in
bright light -- if you activate the flash.
Now, the subject can be fairly bright and the background less "burned out". You
can do this in Program mode, or any operating mode. I would NOT switch to
Manual until you are more experienced.
Peter Burian, Co-Author
Magic Lantern Guide to the Canon 540EZ
W. Paul Mills
I would assume you are using print film? Take it back, and ask
them to print it darker. Your picture *might* be just fine, just
poorly printed.
"JamieRN" <jwoo...@mindspring.com> writes:
> I took a photo of my two kids with a river & afternoon sky in the
> background. I'm VERY new to photography, and used my auto focus without
> changing any settings (Elan IIE). Although the photo is fine, it would have
> been better somewhat darker. Their skin looks very pale, and the sky is too
> bright. I wanted the background to show up, but how could I have made them
> more "true" tone. If I had stepped down the aperture, would this have
> helped? TIA for any assistance! Jamie
>
>
--
*********************** Running Debian Linux ***********************
* For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, *
* that whoever believes in Him should not perish... John 3:16 *
* W. Paul Mills * Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. *
* EMAIL= Pa...@Mills-USA.com * WWW= http://Mills-USA.com/ *
* Bill, I was there several years ago, why would I want to go back? *
************* pgp public key on keyservers everywhere? *************/
--
J. S. Oppenheim
be able to pull off sunny days on the water kind of shots. Here are some things
I do to hold color values true:
--Gray card baseline: Set your meter for manual mode and take your baseline
reading off of a gray card or equivalent in a mix of light similar to what
you're shooting. Sophisticated read-outs on AF cameras will allow you to "open
up" 1/3 to 1 stop on a subject of interest located in a shadowed part of the
composition, or "stop down" 1/3 to 1 stop on key elements of interest bathed in
light. Either way, if you know your baseline, you pretty much know what the
middle tones need (and what tones are middle) in any given composition. When
humans are the subject in straightforward photography, always expose for
accurate flesh tones.
--Blue sky baseline: On extraordinary bright, dry, and cloudless days, select a
patch of sky away from the sun but not too far on the darker horizon--that fair
color provides another middle value and with manual metering will help keep
white sails white while recording with reasonable verisimilitude the color of
the sky across its spectrum.
--Polarization: Be careful with this one--you can really darken down a lot of
colors and shadowed areas, including the contours enshadowed on faces.
Nonetheless, dialed in properly, you can get colors richer than you imagined
(you still need to meter around the key tones in the scene).
--Graduated density filter: If your scene splits between, say, dark water with
a still blinding blue-white sun on the horizon at sunset, you may try composing
with a graduate density filter. By the way, not to start a myth, but I believe
UV filters as well as common sense refraining from tracking to much into the sun
may play a critical role in protecting eyes from late afternoon burning.
--Auto setting exposure compensation. Because the whole point of AF Auto is to
not have to worry about exposure, it's easy enough to get the camera's reading
for your subject area, compare it to the gray card or blue sky reading, and set
exposure compensation accordingly. The downside? It's easy, at least for me,
to forget about the exposure compensation factor while changing subjects.
Despite the industry's strides forward in every kind of automated exposure
approach, I would wager that most serious amateurs revert to manual mode or an
exposure compensation regimen when faced with stunningly bright and high
contrast situations.
//Jim
Paul Ferrara wrote:
> Your camera's meter got fooled by all the water & sky. It assumes the scene
> will average out to a middle gray and in this case it was quite a bit
> brighter than that. There are a couple of things you can do.
>
> One, point the camera at some grass or the palm of your hand and lock in the
> exposure. Then compose and focus, and shoot.
>
> Two, your camera may have a couple exposure compensation buttons on it.
> Press the one that will increase exposure. Often they're calibrated in
> half-stop increments so you'll want to press it 2-4 times.
>
> You'll run into a similar problem with backlighting (when the sun is behind
> the subject).
>
> Paul
>
> JamieRN <jwoo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:81sfke$elc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
flyboy803
gremlin to chase away; and that's segment metering...several threads
over the last year or so on r.p.35mm.e have discussed how segment
metering can be very easily fooled in even simple situations...don't
own a Canon, but can attest that my N70's "Matrix" metering has been
fooled several times in situations similar to yours...you might want to
try using C-W metering only, which has largely solved my problem...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
JamieRN
Jamie
Paul Ferrara
metering options and that's probably one of them.
Paul
JamieRN <jwoo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:81v2dr$mkb$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
Scottandte
Also you can try using different films, try braketing, try using your camera's
spot meter, etc.
Scott
RedD...@aol.com
a bright sky and the shadows next to a rock, MUCH more than
film can record. Slide film especially only have about a 16:1
brightness ratio. This means that a scene with faces in shadow
against a bright sky could be beyond the limits of what film
can record.
When your camera tries to balance all the brighness values
in the scene (by whatever metering system it's using) it
may be forced to make compromises in order to get what it
thinks is the best result.
Solution? If you have a spot meter you can see just how
different the brightness values are. You can see what the
meter would say if only the sky was being photographed.
Then you can go very close to the person and see what the
meter says then, etc. If you're using slide film and you're
more than 4 stops of difference (each one being twice as
much or half as much depending on which direction your going),
then you're going to get this kind of result. Even without
a spot meter you can go very close to your prospective targets
to include only those things in each reading.
You might try placing the person against a background that
is less bright.
Also a polarizer can darken the sky if it's close to 90 degrees
away from the position of the sun. Also, if the person is not
actually against the sky, but the land, but you still want the
sky to come out darker, a graduated neutral density filter
can help. It's a filter that is dark on one end and clear on
the other. It is usually in a rectangular holder that screws to
the front of the lens and allows you to move the area of the
filter where the dark part of the filter fades to the clear
part to match your particular picture.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PBurian
There is a real mixture of opinions as to the cause of the problem and how to
correct it.
The real problem is that he did not full describe the situation he was
photographing, and exactly what is wrong with the photos.
Hence, a mish mash of conflicting opinions.
Peter Burian
PBurian
His complaint was that the sky and water was washed out -- too bright -- not
about under exposure.
Peter Burian
flyboy803
<jwoo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Okay - you're way over my head! What is C-W metering? Thanks for
> the info.
> Jamie
Hi Jamie...
Sorry, C-W is my lazy way of writing center weighted...let me say again
that you are getting some very good advice here from some very
impressive people...and it is possible that many things in concert
could solve your problem, while any one thing on its own could do so as
well...good luck...
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> I took a photo of my two kids with a river & afternoon sky [it came
> out pale...]
For darker skies and water try using a polarizing filter. It will
improve such shots no end by darkening the water and the sky but
leaving the kids alone.
You may find if you have the processor darken the print that the
kids become overly dark - though you say in this case the kids
are also too light, which does indeed point to a processor error.
But, do give a polarizer a shot.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
J. S. Oppenheim
processing are real wildcards--what you get depends on who gets your
negatives and their training, tastes, and technology. One thing I
believe in religiously is custom processing for the highest level of
consistency and reliability in general processing and specialized
experience in color print balancing (filter selection, not correction)
for personal occasion and portrait photography.
While color emphasis and enrichment make the polarizing filter a standard
bag item, I've seen it wipe out human skin tones in shadow--the exposure
wanted is always part mid-tone correct (gray card; skin; open sky; etc.)
and part the knowledgeable adaptation of experience to taste.
One of the things that may be hardest for casual shooters to keep in mind
and put to use is the relative failure of all current film stocks to
emulate the superior qualities of human vision itself--we see with much
greater depth and latitude than film can record; we also color correct
and selectively accept visible data and accentuate viewability--we see
what we most need to see in the many infinitesimal increments of
conscious perception. I am virtually blind in my right eye but have the
good fortune to have some vision in it and all of its peripheral viewing
capability--for the purposes of photography, fine craft work, dancing,
and driving, I have better than 20/20 vision thanks to a crystal sharp
left eye and the mind's ability to dismiss without conscious
consideration the distortions that would otherwise be contributed by the
damaged twin. The chemistry and physics of photography really do not
emulate anything like vision, which is further complicated by sensory
ties to personal idiosyncratic emotional and intellectual purposes, but
provide a visual recording medium with sets of constraints defined by the
photographer's choice of emulsion, lens, light, subject, and composition,
and those emulsions cover at best in selected high contrast views about
two thirds of what is otherwise available to the human. Snappers don't
really think like that (and with Kodak touting latitude in its general
purpose film marketing, they're not likely to start thinking like that)
and are consequently at the unthinking mercy of technology algorithms
insensitive to the shooter's true purpose.
All that aside, nothing beats a correct exposure when it comes to people,
and the correct exposure for average skin is a reading taken from it in
the same quality of light that would illuminate the composition. If, for
example, the subject is heavily backlit and 30 yards away, the shadowed
side of the photographer's hand (or gray card indirectly lit) 18 inches
from the lens (with in-camera meter) provides the baseline exposure. The
light is the same in both locations--only the surrounding elements change
. . . .
. . . which brings up a note: to a photographic programmer, cameras take
pictures of scenes, which may be compared rapidly with thousands of
similar scenes for an informed exposure guestimate, but in fact,
photographers don't take pictures of scenes--they take pictures of the
things that are in scenes. An uncovered face or exposed hand in a
recreational snap shot may take up less than 1/100th of the frame
available, but because of our human interest in the pictorialized human,
its exposure is the critical one for the scene. Again, regardless of the
strategy chosen to reduce scene contrast (to better suit film latitude
capabilities) or add color and warmth to its cooler values by using
filters, there is only one correct exposure (critical mid tone plus
taste), and only the photographer can choose it. The machinery still
doesn't have a clue (although I'm pretty darned impressed by in-camera
color temperature sensitivity technology).
//Jim